Your silly pomposity, arrogance and pretentiousness never fails to amaze me. No wonder you had the second paper totally rejected, and no wonder you have dishonestly plageurised at certain points in this and other posts. Are you going to clean the slate and answer the questions you continue to avoid?
There is nothing left for you to fall further !! You have fallen to your nadir and taken few along with you. Enjoy the deep dark bottomless pit of ignorance.
Yet despite your lies and pretentious nonsense, it has been you totally refuted in most threads, and with them being moved to the fringes. The jokes on you fool.
Second sentence Post #4 The above statement does not imply that mass is the only thing that contributes to a gravitational field. All it says is that I am in the camp that agrees with Okun's position, that there is only one real mass (my words), the frame invariant rest mass of a particle... And that the term relativistic mass, in the SR context, is an old concept that involves more than just the particle's mass and can be misleading. When I read your statement above, it sounds like you are claiming that I have said that nothing but a particle's frame invariant mass contributes to the gravitational field. That is not the case, and it is a good example exactly why, all of the debate over definitions is important in discussion. Also pay attention to the fact that I have consistently used the word mass, where above you mention, both matter and matter's mass.., and in a manner that implies that mass is but one component of that matter. (When you say, "its rest mass", to me it implies that its mass is only one contributing component)... While matter is composed of massive particles, there are internal dynamics that become far more complex than when dealing only with the mass, of an isolated particle. When Bruce, Strassler and Steve Carlip all used the term relativistic mass, in their comments (posted or referenced), I understood what they meant and the only objection I had or have, is that it seems obvious to me that without clear definition of the modern GR context, the term is misleading. In the modern context the term includes not just a particle's frame invariant rest mass, instead it includes both its mass and its total energy content. Where the thread began with an implied interpretation that a particle's inherent mass actually increases with velocity, becomming significant at relativistic velocities. An interpretation I believe is an old interpretation that confuses a SR frame dependent apparent change in mass, with frame invariant rest mass. IOW the old SR relativistic mass, is a frame dependent quantity. While rest mass is frame invariant. But that discussion becomes more complex and involved when, as it appears, Steve Carlip may be suggesting (I still have not read his paper), gravitomagnetic/gravitioelectromagnetic effects are added to the discussion, of the character of a gravitational field. From Steve Carlip's comments in tashja's post, Again.., not having read the whole of his paper, above it appears that he is saying, that while the Newtonian aspect of the field is velocity independent, excluding implications associated with time of light delays in propagation, the gravitomagnetic effects of the field are velocity dependent. There are some similarities in this between what one expects when comparing a Schwarzschild and Kerr black hole. The Swarzschild case is similar to a Newtonian field. Where the Kerr case incorporates a gravotomagnetic framedragging effect. (Gravitomagnetic and gravitoelectromagnetic descriptions of a gravitational field are analog models that help to explain and describe how the motion of a gravitating object affects the field (spacetime). They don't really mean that there are two fields, a more or less static Newtonian attractive field and a dynamic gravitomagnetic field, that interact. The gravitomagnetic/gravitoelectromagnetic analogs are just used to describe the dynamic velocity dependent aspects of the gravitational field of a moving or rotating mass. (I have been using gravitomagnetic/gravitoelectromagnetic because in the documents resulting from the GP-B experiment it is referenced as gravitoelectromagnetic, while Carlip used the term gravitomagnetic.) I also believe that buried within your comments was a discussion about whether kinetic energy actually contributes to rest mass, which I see as a separate discussion that may even involve exactly what we believe about the fundamental origins of what we understand of mass and inertia... Which I believe should be a thread of its own.
Normally I would say that this thread has run its course, and that further discussion will just be unproductive bickering. But for a rarity, there are multiple non-cranks on both sides of the argument here, so I think it's worth resolving. Let's start with what we all agree on. In the language of special relativity, we often talk about an object's "rest mass" versus its "relativistic mass", with the relativistic mass generally increasing as the object gets more kinetic energy. In general relativity, we can - and according to many experts, should - drop the idea of relativistic mass and instead discuss objects in terms of their rest mass and total energy. One big reason for this is that in general relativity, gravity isn't just Newtonian with an extra multiplicative constant; there are more exotic gravitomagnetic effects that come into play at high velocities, and the idea of relativistic mass doesn't capture these. The total gravitational influence of a given object will be some combination of its Newtonian rest-mass gravity and some contribution from its kinetic energy. Everyone agree so far? (Side note for OnlyMe: I have to say, it takes a really tortured reading to get the above from But like Q-reeus said about paddoboy, you're a certified non-crank who contributes good posts, so I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt that that's what you meant.) All of the above is just semantics; nowhere so far have I talked about competing physical predictions. But there is a question of physical prediction that, as far as I can tell, has still not been resolved. My doubt comes from comments like the following: It seems like some of us are still under the impression that an object's velocity either doesn't affect its gravitational pull, or only contributes to the gravitomagnetic part of its gravity. Both of those claims are wrong. This is not an issue on which both sides can be "partly right"; it's a question of predicting the results of hypothetical experiments, so it must have a definite answer. To keep the discussion on track, I'm going to post my claim (I think I can speak for Q-reeus as well) as plainly as I can: An object's kinetic energy increases its Newtonian gravitational pull. Formally, we can define "Newtonian" gravity as either the monopole component of the object's gravitational field, or the gravitational pull on a test mass in the asymptotically large distance limit. I think this claim is really the central question of this thread, and I'm pretty sure it's true.
Going back to your first post......... I will now admit some of my statements were wrong, but I certainly still hold onto the fact that the rest mass of any body does not change due to velocity or speed, and that is what rajesh seemed to be projecting. My stance in this has been enforced by the "nature of the beast" that is rajesh, and his total dishonesty that is so obvious in past threads. This can be re-enforced by many others. The Plagiarism that has been obvious without links....the lies as in another thread where he accused me of claiming light/photons had no momentum in an argument I was having with jcc who was actually claiming that. The rest of rajesh's nonsense is well known even to yourself, not that any of the points I am making will concern you to any great degree and the animosity that exists between you and I. The fact that I am addressing this to you should reflect that I hold you in higher regard then I do with rajesh. In summing, I am certainly retracting my statement that only rest mass contributes to a gravitational field, and certainly hope I have not mislead any others in that regard. Perhaps my retraction may help others that have been shown to be 100% wrong in past threads to realize that all of us are wrong at times, and it should not be that difficult to admit.
Fednis48, I don't have a problem with any of your above comments, I am not as certain as you seem to be about, "An object's kinetic energy increases its Newtonian gravitational pull." That is a conclusion I don't know the answer to, even though I understand the argument in favor.., and I waiver as to which view I favor. I do agree that there has to be a definite answer, I just don't know what that is. I would also say that there may really be two separate aspects involving kinetic energy, which may have different solutions. Inherent or internal kinetic energy like heat or the fundamental interaction between the constituent parts of matter.., and relative kinetic energy like an object's relative velocity. As I said, I don't know the answer in either case. I tend to believe that both will involve a better fundamental understanding of inertia.
The relativistic answer concludes the objects kinetic energy influences the local spacetime curvature as the object follows its natural geodesic path. There's nothing pulling on anything. It's kinetic energy is just part of the components which make up the stress energy tensor whose components, when present, effect the local spacetime curvature. Which is gravity. GR predicts local spacetime curvature is gravity and that the local spacetime curvature determines the path of the falling object. In the weak field GR predicts the local spacetime curvature is an infinitesimal. So the prediction for the path is essentially straight over large areas of the spacetime which are modeled to be flat. It's much easier to understand than Newton. Newton didn't have all the information so he was stuck with action at a distance.
It might indeed. The further away distant galaxies get, the greater the relativistic Doppler red shifts we see. At relativistic speeds, the masses of galaxies, already known to have been underestimated by virtue of "dark matter" would mean their gravitational attractions also increase. A galaxy that formerly weighed in at the mass-energy of a ping-pong ball at rest might well become the equivalent mass-energy of a freight train. Outer shells of escaping galaxies would cause inner shells to accelerate as the universe expanded. An interesting cosmology you have there, LB.
Of course it doesn't. "Rest mass" is at rest. 'Velocity or speed' relative to what? It also is entirely beside the point Little Bang was trying to make in the first post and I also know for a fact that your knowledge of physics and relativity is better than this. No one here is saying (or at least, I don't think that they are saying) that the mass or gravity of a body moving at relativistic speeds with respect to observer who is at rest with respect to it undergoes any noticeable increase in mass. But if the light from an even more distant galaxy or cluster of galaxies were to be gravitationally lensed about the galaxy or object that is moving away from us at relativistic speed, the light would be bent EXACTLY the way it would be if the effective mass of the object had actually increased, would it not? The answer to Little Bang's question is simply "yes". Do you still deny it?
Fair enough. Hopefully someone better-versed in relativity will step in and answer this question unambiguously. I only talk about gravity "pulling" because I'm hard-pressed to come up with good terminology for the questions I'm trying to ask. It's all well and good to say that the dynamics of any system can be elegantly described as geodesics in a spacetime that is curved by the stress energy tensor, but that gives no back-of-the-envelope intuition about what those dynamics actually are. Maybe I can ask my question in another way: consider two massive bodies moving past each other, with a third party watching from far away. From the third party's perspective, the two bodies deflect from their straight paths and accelerate toward each other. Does the magnitude of this acceleration increase as the kinetic energies of the bodies increase? I think the answer is yes, but I'd like to hear you confirm or deny that explicitly.
Rather than comment on your imo bizarre attempted justification for earlier statements (Fednis48 in #145 has done a good job there), I suggest getting down NOW and actually studying Prof. Carlip's article. Hopefully that will result in a clearing up of your doubts about e.g. whether heating a gas raises it's inertial and gravitational mass. Eotvos experiments, carefully interpreted, leave no reasonable room for doubt. Beyond that, I think it's high time you explained your philosophical position, which seems to be an extreme form of positivism. Meaning, each and every instance of a physical situation needs experimental proof before accepting. Thus, on that view, one can't confidently extrapolate from one known situation to another at all. An extremely limiting viewpoint. But consistent with your many prior comments in this and other threads - including your #147 here. Again - get down and Study the Carlip article!
Agreed. It's strictly true that in GR there is no 'pull' in the sense of a Newtonian g force, but even GR experts very often slip into the language of 'gravitational force' and there is no real confusion in context. A heated object, or spun-up gyroscope, will weigh more on the scales than otherwise. And in the latter case, strictly according to the (integrated) 'relativistic mass/energy'. In the former case, that's also a very good approximation for a typical gas, but only half the increase is a result of increased KE in the case of a solid (and nearly also for a liquid). Always though, the added weight/inertial mass goes according to the famous E = mc^2, where E is the total added energy. That's the core issue.
I almost burst into tears reading that paddoboy. It came late but good for you for finally swallowing a bit of pride. You were the last I expected that from but so far the only one to do the right thing. OK then so let's all move on, and hope the others will have it in them to follow suite.
For simplicity consider Earth and an object falling towards it, Strictly from the point of view from Newtonian (since thats what you suggested in your earlier post), the answer, as you say, is yes. But can it be attributed to the increased Kinetic Energy ? No. I feel it is more to do with reduction in gap between the two, rather than the increased KE.
For starters, modern cosmology has, on average, everyone 'at the center' and 'outer shells gravitationally accelerating inner shells' is just wrong thinking. Shell theorem forbids any interior gravity owing to an exterior (spherical) shell of matter. Further, on a simple reading of cosmological expansion as galaxies flying away from us in an otherwise flat and static spacetime, effective gravitational influence per galaxy is then reduced by the recessional redshift factor. You have ignored the 'pancaked' nature of the field of a moving object. However, in a GR setting it's not really so clear cut as to the exact effective mass, and one needs to consult the literature for worked examples. Which probably never think in such terms. [The net effect of a large scale uniform matter/energy density is always to decelerate cosmological expansion. Only the mysterious 'dark energy' (if real) component causes an acceleration - and that attributed to overall dominance of it's negative pressure] As regards your gravitational lensing speculation in #150, I just note that when distant light encounters a less distant galaxy and deflects in it's field, the degree of cosmological redshift of such light then extant has no effect on the deflection. Which is entirely free of frequency abberation. The subsequent effective deflection angle received here is a matter of detailed calculations based on FLRW cosmology and I won't hazard a guess beyond that it is very unlikely to coincice with your guess/assertion.
In continuation with my earlier post, in relativity, the total energy in the context is.. E = gamma * m * c^2 = KE + m * c^2 where m is the rest mass. And this total Energy E, impacts the stress energy tensor, and thus gravity is affected by KE. Whether KE appears as the independent component in the tensor, I am not sure, it is certainly the part of total energy E.
You are a changed man now, Paddoboy. I retract all my negative utterances against you. Lets move on. PS: Hope in future you will never give your 'likes' for post # 149 type as in http://www.sciforums.com/threads/how-was-hydrogen-born.143228/page-8. However truthful that may be.
Thinking in terms of accelerating towards eachother is a product of a Newtonian perspective. The planets are in freefall over an inertial geodesic path. No forces acting upon them. They move towards eachother because their individual paths change according to the dynamics of the local spacetime curvature. For example the dynamic relationship you mention. That's the way GR could explain it in words. I bring it up because it's what I'm most familiar with. Most everything I've learned about Newton's model is through studying GR. To answer the question. Since mass and energy are equivalent they both effect the local spacetime curvature in the same way. Along with a few other components discussed when you're reading about Einsteins stress energy tensor equation.
Why would you believe that? How stupidly childishly ignorant of you. I made a statement that was not quite true, and withdrew it. Perhaps instead of acting the fool after what you obviously see as a victory, and deflating your obnoxious ego, you need to think about retracting some of the nonsense you have portrayed in this forum. I won't hold my breath though. Strong language sure, but quite applicable considering the antics and lies you were contributing in that thread.
